I have to chime in in support of Professor Moriarty: I also thought the previous design was better than the new one - the long, sweeping wedge that rises from the nose and out to direct your view to the nacelles was classic, and tied the various elements of the ship together much better than the current 'triangular' upper deck. I think there are too many longitudanal cuts in the current design, especially after they are bisected by the triangle (frankly, it reminds me too much of the Sovereign now). Of the current options, I prefer the deflecter in its more forward position, but the name and number also look better closer to the front (and thus, larger).

Ptrope said:I think there are too many longitudanal cuts in the current design, especially after they are bisected by the triangle (frankly, it reminds me too much of the Sovereign now).

Click to expand...

I agree with the Mod (it's part of my new kiss-ass persona).

But I prefer the more rearward deflector. (Bang goes the kiss-ass persona).

I particularly like the more rearward deflector as it would necessitate canting the bridge to a greater angle off the centreline "to avoid interference" - perhaps it would even have to face backwards . Also the forward space the deflector occupies could be used for the bowling alley.

Everybody just chill for a little while. Clearly the new design does not measure up to the previous one, so I'm going to try for a third option that combines the best elements of both. Gimme 'til the end of the week.

Actually, I really like the new one. I much prefer the non-split phaser ring. I think that the advantage of "flowing" the little deflector rig into the cannon recess can be accomplished while still having the phaser ring cross the gap. I like the more "mechanical" feel of the new design better than the old one, with the smoother and more organic curves. Then again, that's just me... I like something to look like it makes sense, and the new design really does "make sense" as I look at it. The old one, while perhaps a bit more "artistic," feels less "real" to me than the new one does.

Hey, it's all a matter of personal style, we all know that. I'm just saying that the new one is much better from the viewpoint of my personal style. A small tweak to the deflector element and I'd say it was perfect.

Vektor said:
Everybody just chill for a little while. Clearly the new design does not measure up to the previous one, so I'm going to try for a third option that combines the best elements of both. Gimme 'til the end of the week.

Click to expand...

NO!!!

Ok if I had to pick one of the options you presented, I like the shape of the saucer and aux deflector location in #1 the best. But I dont like what it forces vis a vis the registery number and ships name.

Nice to hear! I agree... and I don't think we're going to run out of names, or numbers for that matter, for starfleet ships anytime soon!

Actually, with Trek off the air and off the screens, there's a chance that things will sort of go back to how they were in the late 70s and early 80s, during the last "great trek renaissance" before it was killed off by Paramount Legal. People doing their own work, out of love, and making it form a complete cohesive whole that's not perpectually, and willfully, being contradicted by lower-quality stuff coming from the "official" guys.

Commander, what I have in mind with respect to detailing the 2D plans is for you to do something similar to what you did with the original Grandeur design. I'm looking for your take on markings, insignia, hatches, emitters, gridlines, panels, and any other surface details you think are appropriate. I'm not talking about the textures that will be applied to the model so they don't have to be photo-realistic; simple color diagrams added to the 2D views I am creating should be sufficient. I will probably also let you lay out most of the windows.

The final texturing process will be a project unto itself, so let's save most of that for when the time comes.